Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Gimpy,
1) Still being dishonest? I think I dealt with the smallness of the buddhist sample in the last post. Still ignoring the non-religious grouping I note. The point of including the buddhist data was, as I said, to a) illustrate the small sample problem and the fact that you are treating a small percentage of a group as representative of a whole group, and b) that if the criminality of muslims was relevant to their religion due to the over-representation of muslims in prison, then the same follows (a fortiori) for buddhists and more strongly for non-religious people.
The whole point is to demonstrate that you are picking and choosing your stats to suit your prejudices, not to advance an alternative claim. I keep repeating this and you keep bashing away at the strawman in your head and ignoring it.
2) Read the axes of the graphs on pages 23 and 24 of the document you misquote and you will see that a greater percentage of the graph for the Pakistani/Bangladeshi is in the range 20-39 than for any other group except black Africans and Carribeans (another high crime group you ignore for convenience).
Also I made the point about the inadequacy of the data you refer to, the population graphs (pages 23/24) are more usueful but I have extracted the numbers from them. They are nice piccies Gimpy, you should be able to see the differences.
3) Get this through your skull, I am not making any claims other than the data does not fit your claim and that other factors are correlated more strongly with your integration criteria than religion or race and that you are ignoring these. Yet again my point is that you have to look at the WHOLE picture, not just the bits you like. As I've said MANY times now there are many correlations, religion is one, but to focus on it to the exclusion of others is dishonest, irrational and ridiculous. Especially when it is'nt the strongest correlation. You focus on the increase in muslim criminality, which is significant for the muslim population (although not the UK pop as a whole) I am asking why you don't focus on the bigger increase in buddhist criminality and non-religious criminality which are more significant for the buddhist community and non-religious community respectively (but only in the latter case for the UK pop).
Do you see where you have gone wrong? You're accusing me of comparing the tiny sample of criminal buddhists to the UK pop when I am not, I'm comparing it to the buddhist pop, just like you are comparing the criminal muslim pop to the muslim pop. Since both are small samples of the whole UK pop, they either both fall foul of the problems you claim exist or both don't. You are STILL ignoring the increases in the statistically far more significant non-religious pop.
Lastly, it's really amusing to see you keep misrepresenting my argument, it demonstrates my point that the only way you can maintain your claim is by lying. Thanks for your help.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
